Rent Lies of Omission

Thursday, February 27, 2014

...mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

While evils are sufferable. Are they still? How much more are a people supposed to suffer at the hands of unrestrained and lawless government? Is not every day spent wondering, dreading the next dictates from on high? Is there not a sense that there is no recourse to the unconstitutional acts of the bureaucracy? Is there not a feeling that the Supreme Court is acting against the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness inherent to every free individual?

It is clearly the intent of the Constitution to secure these rights, it is the very purpose of its construction to do so, yet time and time again the Court finds in favor of government power against the liberty of the people.

Throw out the Constitution, there is no reason to even argue the merits, or the justification within it to act as Americans against the abuses of the document. It is irrelevant. The Constitution can only be secured by the actions of the people and we have not acted. We have argued in every way shape and form that the actions of government, going back one hundred, even one hundred and sixty years that the actions of the government were not supported by the Constitution. Nothing has changed.

We have all the wisdoms of the founders at hand. Of the people in the liberty-minded community, I knew few who cannot cite from memory article after article of the Constitution as if knowledge of the document secured some magical solution to the abuses of government. It does not. Being a proponent of the Constitution only gives one knowledge that it is time to fight, nothing more.

It is time. It has been time for a long time. Instead of prepping to survive the coming unrest, one would be better off squaring their affairs; writing wills; securing statements to be presented to the court in their defense; moving retirement funds into gold and silver so that their accounts cannot be seized by the government, so they will still be obtainable by those left behind.

It would be better to prepare one's exit from the realm of the living, leaving one's family in the best possible position once the soldier has passed from the scene than to burrow deeper into a bunker easily foiled by a drone strike. Gathering about oneself their families is to consign them to death when the government gets frisky. Better to stand alone and draw fire away from the family than to attract law enforcement toward them.

Be the front-line soldier.

When the smoke does finally clear on this new battle for human dignity and liberty there will be no Constitution, there will be no reformation, there will be no new covenant to human dignity. Nothing will now stop the snowball of government overreach and abuse, we have let that window of opportunity close. Without the dedication of the Republican party, the legal opposition to the leftists, there is no legal protection of the Constitution. It must now come down to natural law, to what men will fight for and what they will defend with their blood.

When you would rather die than to wake to another round of oppression and sickening destruction of American culture, you will know what to do. I await your company.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

The leftists usually win the battles over social issues because the right has yet to enter the fray. This is the difference between America on the left and America on the right: they play by different rules. The left will always use everything at its disposal to win, whereas the right is usually limited by its principles.

Let's take the issue of the Christian cake baker and the gay couple for instance. A gay couple, it could be argued with intent to create a legal case, goes into a bakery known for its Christian values and demands a cake to be baked for their gay wedding. The gay couple is committed to the lawsuit, probably has pro-bono, leftist, gay lawyers standing by at the ready. The Christian baker is obligated to stand by his convictions to his religious beliefs and refuses service to the gay couple.

A Supreme Court decision on the issue will reduce the religious liberty of every Christian-owned business in the nation forever. It will become a "settled" issue. It is a huge win for the leftists and a blow to liberty and Christians. It is an attack.

Meanwhile, those who understand Jefferson's definition of rightful liberty are willing to extend those liberties to everyone else and ignore the sexual orientation of the people with whom they do business. Even for Christians, a business owner who is homosexual is of little concern to them, but if it is, they will simply go somewhere else. They do not (as the left does) demand that the homosexuals deny their sexual orientation before doing business with them demanding some irrational right to religious liberty and threatening a lawsuit if they do not comply.

It is respect for liberty that should guide us in our daily lives as Americans.

What if America on the right decided to take the gloves off and for once abandon the principles which have kept them silent so long? What if they took every perceived affront and made legal cases out of it? What if Christians attempted to invoke the name of God constantly in their lives trying to find an objection to it so they could sue under the "free exercise thereof" clause of the First Amendment? What if conservatives, who might not actually have any reservations toward homosexuals at all, wore T-shirts announcing they were anti-gay and just waited for the opportunity to sue under the First Amendment freedom of speech?

What if conservatives took a radical view of their social rights and pursued them in an in-your-face sort of way? I suppose that would make them something else.

At least the America on the right would not act like the hypocrite, leftist discriminationists like the Abbey Bar and Grill in West Hollywood. Read this story and understand the utter stupidity and insanity of the left.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

American patriots can look to Ukraine to understand how this sort of thing needs to go. We like to think that people in the streets will do nothing, but that's only if the protesters do nothing. It is not hard to provoke a line of protest-busting cops and reveal the dark heart of the government. That is the purpose of the front line soldier, to show the evil forces for what they are.

There are always objections; always principled excuses for failing to do what we all must know is necessary to re-establish the Constitution. Let me tick off a few:
-protesting doesn't work
-the protests are backed by or will be corrupted by Soros
-the media will make us out to be racists
-that's what they want, to get us all into one place and exterminate us
-I don't want to be associated with (Tea Party, Christians, militias, etc)
-we need a trigger
-we need a leader
-we will be supplying a false flag for the government
-I support the (First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth or Tenth Amendment) I do not support the (First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth or Tenth Amendment)
-I don't worship at the feet of the Constitution
-I don't want to go to jail, what if someone does something illegal?
-we just need to elect Republicans
-we just need to elect conservatives
-we need to elect Libertarians
-if I participate I will leave my family and friends exposed

Those are a few that I have heard. They all spell one thing: "let's sit around and complain rather than act."

There are a few hard facts: the people are the only ones who have ever been able to make a difference. That comes with the risk to one's life. That comes with making sacrifices of every kind and yet, we lose a little at a time and that seems better.

We watched the government and the bankers take trillions of dollars in homes, property and cash without much more than the creation of a law-abiding, low-key Tea Party, one which, if it had proceeded to demand rather than ask politely of the government, could have changed the very structure of the nation in a few short months. But, they didn't capitalize on sentiment and reaction, rather, they chose to spend their time deflecting accusations of racism. Out of fear of looking violent, they chose to strap a yoke on their neck and were quickly co-opted by establishment Republicans looking for a way to win elections.

When it happens again, when they steal even more trillions from nationalizing IRSs, 401ks, bank accounts, or restrict deductions from any or all of these, we will all again sit silent as we have done before. We have already established our credentials.

Whenever I write such posts I am accused of doing nothing. I have put efforts into such actions at great expense to myself. I have gone to Washington, got permits to hold a demonstration, been followed around by scrubs through the streets of DC. I have written a book to distribute to get the message across, most of the time free of charge or minimal charge so I could re-print. I have created organizations to do these things. I don't blame anyone for not coming along, for not sharing my vision. It is not important that they see things my way, I am willing to see things their way, but something has to happen. I have done all I could and been left with two others on the day of the big demonstration (the three of us are in a picture somewhere).

Ukraine is an example of what action looks like; Libya is another; Egypt is another; Syria is another. It is not that we do not know how such things are done. It is uncomfortable, some people get hurt, some killed, the demonstration is always in jeopardy of betrayal, of being co-opted by larger forces bent on taking that initial impulse and turning it to their ends. There is no safe revolution, or (in our case) counter-revolution. There is no guarantee that we will get what we want, but in every other political protest and action, it has caused, or may cause the fall of the government.

By inaction we have allowed the actions of the DHS, the IRS, the FBI, the NSA and the bankers. We have put the tools of our own oppression in their hands. They have challenged us and we have fallen silent. I stood on the mall with about a million other people listening to Glenn Beck. One word from him at that moment would have changed everything and he gave not a word of action.

Peace is delivered by only two methods: 1) the legal and binding contract between the government and the people which details the rights of the people and the rights of the government and respect for each; 2) absolute oppression and suppression of the human right to life, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness).

The patriot has the law on his side, no matter how well it has been bent to the aims of the government. It is our great desire to live under the contract that should motivate us. It is the government that is in violation of the contract, not the people. Yet, we sit idle, waiting for the chains; for the pits to be dug so that we can act. We watch while police departments are militarized, while the military trains to subdue us and we pay for it with our taxes, believing ourselves to be rational.

I have lost everything in pursuit of these goals. After I formed Guardians of Liberty, my business was audited by the IRS until they found one little mistake; the government made survival of my business impossible by protecting banks instead of individuals, preventing me from reorganizing debt that would have been manageable. I have been forced to leave my home state in search of employment.

There are risks of action, but there is absolute certainty of oppression in inaction.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

David Green, founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby, has, through great hesitation, decided to sue the federal government to ensure his rights to pursue his religious rights as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This is just another in a long line of needless lawsuits arising out of an unjust and unconstitutional law, affectionately called Obamacare by Barack Obama, or otherwise given the ironic title of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which accomplishes neither patient protection, nor affordable care.

The Constitutional questions are not questions at all. There is no more clear wording in the Bill of Rights than: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There simply is no more clear admonition than "Congress shall make no law..." What part of "no" is vague? What part of "congress" is vague? What part of "law" is vague? What part of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is vague?

Very clearly, if Congress makes a law, drafts a law or passes a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion, i.e. requires that Christians, in order to obey such law, must violate their religious beliefs against abortion by funding that activity, providing that activity through any means, which violates their admonition from God in the Ten Commandments not to kill, is not unconstitutional, then words mean nothing.

Unfortunately, we have seen all too often that when it comes to federal government power, the federal Supreme Court, has found in favor of the government and against the citizen. It is hostile to religion. It is hostile to liberty.

If it is found that Hobby Lobby is forced to violate their freedom of religion, it is the intent of David Green to close its doors. Realistically, they will probably sell their assets to some other large retailer and the stores will stay open under another name. Christian values, however, will be largely diminished.

There are a long list of reasons Obamacare should have been ruled unconstitutional, not just for the violation of religious freedoms inherent in its language, but the violations of individual liberty wherein a mandate requiring the people to purchase anything, including medical coverage, is a violation of the Constitution.

Finding Obamacare constitutional is an example of how the Supreme Court is acting illegally by failing to uphold the Constitution. It is why every judgment made by this Supreme Court is an affront to justice. Allowing any nine people in the nation to encumber the entire population with unwanted, unwarranted violations of liberty is political malpractice. It changes the very fundamentals of a republican form of government and arrives at a system much more akin to an oligarchy.

Christians must fight back against these abuses of government. They are now involved in the fight and while many Christians find it unpalatable to engage in politics, politics have engaged them. To honor God is not to forfeit His will to bureaucrats because of sloth and a refusal to take up Christ's defense in the public square. It is the duty of Christians to empty the churches and fill the streets.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

As we have watched our local "Andy Griffith" police departments
turn into something more akin to Robocop, it is difficult to figure out why.
The number of police officers intentionally murdered in the United States
(excludes accidents, vehicular and otherwise) has remained roughly the same
over the past 23 years, ending in 2013.

Perhaps it is because of the big gangs that they have to encounter, cartels
from Mexico, etc. There haven't been any big drug busts, or interdiction of
crime that comes to mind. I have never heard of some inner city gang lord being
taken down. But, even if there were, that is more of a DEA, FBI or ICE role
anyway and there has always been a quasi-military style attitude with these
departments as far back as their institution.

Perhaps it is the threat of terrorism that has caused the change. The key
word in that sentence is "threat," but those threats have not really
materialized in the 12 years since 9-11 and do not account for the hostility
the average citizen has encountered from the new militarized police
departments. It does not account for the routine use of the Taser.

The actual numbers of murders (not per capita) in America has actually come
down from its high in 1993 of 24,530. This is well before 9-11 and it has been
on a steady decline all through that time period. In 2001, for instance, there
were 16,037. In 2012 there were 14,827. Since 1993 total murders have been
reduced by nearly 10,000 and it has not been from a better protected officer as
officer deaths have remained constant.

School shootings, while sensational and tragic, have never ended by the
police officer shooting the perpetrator, or the perpetrators shooting the
police. The shooters usually end it themselves in the school without
encouragement. These are not murders in the general sense anyway, they are
revenge suicides. There is no intent of school shooters to take over anything,
or demand ransom. They are there to commit suicide; these are the acts of
deranged children lost in a world of video games and violent Hollywood movies.

This all begs the question: What are the police departments gearing up for?

Since 1960, when Andy Griffith ran his little Sheriff's department in
Mayberry, there were only 179 million people in the United States accounting
for 9,110 murders. In 2012 when there were 313 million people, there were 14,
827 murders. That's nearly double the population with roughly a 50% increase.

Police forensics and DNA testing have done more to reduce crime in the
United States than any other factor. The chances of getting away with a violent
murder in America are dramatically less than it was even 10 years ago. Why have
these units not exploded with experts and budgets?

Crime is on the way down. Murders are on the way down. Vesting up and using Tasers
have not changed the murder of police officers.

Statistics do not support the need for the changes in our police forces. The
only thing that accounts for it is that they expect something very bad to take
place. The question is do they intend on stopping it, or causing it?

The point at which America ceased to be the United States of America as designed by the Constitution is debatable. Some say it was the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court decided it was the sole arbiter on constitutionality, making it, in effect, law-givers. Some say it was during the Civil War, the War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression, whichever you prefer. Some say it was the Progressive Era beginning in earnest during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. Regardless of the point at which the revolution took place, it did take place.

This is not a Constitutional republic, otherwise the words in the Constitution would mean something; they would have weight of conscious by those who have sworn an oath to defend it. Without fidelity to the oath, there is no legal representation even if the individual receives enough votes to occupy the office, they are still duty-bound. The vote indicates the expectation that the representative of the people (being representative, senator or president) will defend the Constitution as the oath demands. To go forward as the people's representative without the determination to uphold the Constitution is a fraud. It is a fraud committed by all federal employees who actively violate the Constitution. To even participate in the legislature with the knowledge of others willfully engaging in unconstitutional acts is treason.

In America, the one originally designed, the Supreme Court would only be able to rule on individual cases in their original jurisdiction or appellate role. They would not be able to define words and use stare decisis to perpetuate their flawed logic and convenient redefinition of common words. They would have to undertake the arduous task of simply ruling on each individual case that came to them, not to set precedent for eternity or creating "settled" law that has allowed them such flawed rulings as Dredd Scott and Roe v. Wade (which created privacy rights for pregnant women alone) that they have made throughout history and denied lawful rights to generations of citizens before some future court finally got around to justice.

Should there be some place where certain issues are decided forever? Sure, but it would not be Constitutional. The Constitution says what it is in plain language given the normal use of words at the time. Let lawyers rely on the writings of the founders to prove their case, not the ramblings of nine social engineers (which the court has become since Marbury).

We now have a form of government foreign to the people of the United States. A revolution has taken place.

Those who believe they have the right to say anything they want; the right to decide what religion they will claim and the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs; the right to bear arms; the right to be free of federal troops occupying their home to spy on other citizens; the right to be free from government searches and seizures without sworn warrant; the right to life, liberty and property unless due process of law has given reason that the person should forfeit those rights; the right to a jury trial of one's peers; the right to be free of cruel or unusual punishment; the rights to do many other things other than what are specified in the Bill of Rights; the rights of the states to do whatever has not been specifically given to congress under the Constitution are terrorists.

In order to reclaim these rights, they must fight for their freedom. Obama's terrorists have become America's Freedom fighters.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

As Americans we have wanted the system to work. When the government and the bankers wrecked the economy and looted trillions of dollars in private IRAs, 401ks, home equity and business equity, we waited for the economy to stabilize to where those funds would return. Instead, the government took trillions more in debt to pay off the bankers and government agencies that wrecked the economy in the first place.

When they passed Obamacare through back-door deals and open government bribes in the form of the Cornhusker Kickback and other sweetheart deals to key senators and House members, we waited for the Supreme Court to rule this monstrosity unconstitutional, as logic would dictate that it was.

When the Justice Department was caught red-handed walking guns across the border and into the hands of Mexican drug cartels (ultimately to kill one of our own law-enforcement officers), we waited for the resignation of the Attorney General, as well we should expect.

When Benghazi revealed that the Secretary of State had denied protection to the American Embassy prior to the attack, we waited for the resignation of the Secretary of State, as well we should expect.

When all of the scandals of the Obama Administration leaked out to the public through bloggers rather than the media, we expected the media to step up with their obligations to the public, the way they had with previous administrations.

When the NSA was caught red-handed violating the Fourth Amendment protections against invasions of privacy without warrants, we expected the resignation of the head of the NSA, as well we should expect.

When none of these things drew the ire of the media, we expected the Republican Party to draw the line and offer articles of impeachment, as well we should expect.

We have waited for the American system to work throughout all of the rampant abuses and corruption we have witnessed.

The Constitution offers remedies for the abuses of government. When the people will have waited and let the authorities pursue legal means and it becomes obvious that no remedy to the widespread violations of the public's liberty is forthcoming it is the de facto right of the people to take matters into their own hands. Any violations of law must be weighed against the reality that no legal means of redress were likely to offer relief.

If the Constitution cannot offer protection of liberty to the people, it cannot offer protection from the people.

Sunday, February 9, 2014

While police departments become more militarized with tanks, armor and drones and federal government bureaucracies arm themselves with billions of rounds of ammunition (including the Post Office), it leaves the average American with a sense of dread.

It can not be for self-defense; no one is attacking them. There is no great crime-wave and where crime is worse; more prolific, the cops don't seem to go. To be honest, with all of the increased firepower, ammunition and drones at their disposal it is difficult to understand how they have not had any impact on the crime rate at all.

Perhaps it is because these new tactics and powers are not being used to fight crime, but to be prepared to fight us: the American citizen. That is the dread one feels when they see black cars with heavily-armed men in sunglasses roll down the street. It is an image of gut revulsion, because it is so far from the Andy Griffith image of the 1960's when per capita crime was much higher.

It must be in preparation for some civil unrest to come, something they know that we don't. Yet, to be honest, apart from the infuriatingly law-abiding Tea Party, there has been no significant unrest after the government took trillions of dollars of private capital out of the economic system and gave it to bankers and favored state governments. If the government can do that on the immense scale that it has without riots, it is hard to imagine a situation under which all of these police powers and equipment might be necessary.

The prospect of terrorism? Give me a break. The only terrorists that exist to any degree in America are the terrorists they have created by re-defining veterans and Christians as terrorists. Even when avowed Muslims attack our military soldiers, as in the Fort Hood shooting, it is called something other than terrorism. Let a Christian veteran do it and it is the domestic terrorism they have been using as justification all along. Benghazi wasn't even classified a terrorist act, it was a riot over a video no one saw until after the fact.

It is as if they fear something else, something dark on the horizon. The question is, is that darkness what they fear will happen to them, or what they intend to do to us?

What makes this lurking dread even more prescient is the fact that when whatever they have planned goes down, we will not be informed by the press. The media has spent so much time ignoring or deflecting responsibility from the current administration that instead of illuminating scandals and corruption in government they have been complicit in it.

The major facts of every scandal during the Obama Administration have come first from the Internet, from Fast and Furious (the Gunwalker Scandal broken by David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh ((bloggers)) with due credit to Charyl Atkisson of CBS), to Benghazi. The press has not had time to go into any of these scandals and there are a lot more, i.e. NSA spying, IRS, FBI and OSHA harassment of conservative organizations, etc, etc. All of this leads to the fact that whatever is imminent, we will not be informed of it by the media (after all, they might be too busy digging the pits).

The single and only chance the average citizen has is the Flight 93 Factor; that when confronted with the enormity of the crimes being committed against the American public, there will be decisive, swift and violent resistance. All of the people on that flight wanted to live; wanted nothing more than to go home that evening and embrace their family. When they were confronted with not only their own hijacking, but the knowledge of what was being done elsewhere, they revolted against armed
assailants with nothing more than their absolute refusal to be part of a massacre.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Take heart America, the counter-revolution is nigh. From an historical point of view no system of government has survived the changes taking place in America right now. That is not to say that it will not get uglier before it gets worse, but no government has withstood the radical political, economic and religious attacks Americans currently suffer without revolt.

It is difficult to imagine what event will finally trigger the revolt against the revolution that has taken place over the past hundred years or so, but it is coming. Just as Communism lasted for roughly seventy-five years, the progressive revolution, albeit a creeping revolution, has been taking place for the past hundred years in America. Now it comes to a head, with all of the varying forces of oppression openly avowed against liberty, against capitalism and against societal norms, the face of the revolutionists have been revealed.

While the revolutionists have quietly changed every aspect of American society by molding them into statues of patriotism; hiding them behind principles of Christianity and waging war against "inequality" (which is revolutionist code for their war against private property) they were able to distract the masses. They think they have changed America, but they have only fooled Americans.

Insofar as they have been able to alter, pollute and re-define American institutions they have only caused the American people to distrust these institutions.

The IRS, always a thorn in the side of the people, there was a knowledge that there were tax cheats and that the IRS was a necessary evil. That benefit of the doubt was erased for many people who found themselves targeted by the IRS for political beliefs, also a thing suspected but never proved until the targeting of political opponents became fact.

The NSA, hardly heard of before was considered a necessary evil to protect the national security, until it started spying on the American people with alarming support from the elected government officials (yes, your elected representatives and senators). It no longer enjoys the benefit of the doubt.

The Department of Homeland Security, first distrusted by liberals and conservatives alike, now is supported by the most radical liberals as a way of extending the power of the federal government to use against the detested conservatives and their allies, i.e. Christians and veterans.

The local Police Department, once seen as an ally in civilized society with a few malefactors always present, is now a virtual Standing Army as actively hostile to the American citizen as British troops once were. The mask is off and we see who they are with the proliferation of video capabilities of cell phones. (which should be used mercilessly to expose their true colors)

The United States Military, always understood as an extension of the American ideal, occasionally found itself in wars of political confusion, inarticulate goals and unspecified outcomes has been turned into a weapon to be used against the American people when push comes to shove. The alarming shakeup at the very pinnacle of military command has brought the whole institution into question as to where it stands politically and the people are not willing to give it the benefit of the doubt once considered to be beyond suspicion.

The Supreme Court, once the only protector of rights against the massive power of the federal and state governments, has turned instead to social engineering, finding rights in shadows of other rights and refusing to acknowledge rights in plain and clear English.

Welfare, Social Security, food stamps, housing assistance have all been converted from social safety nets to armies in political conflict with the very concept of private property. This is why charity belongs to religion, not government, because government can never resist the opportunity to use every weapon it can against its foes.

Finally, every agency of the federal government is militarized. The Post Office just ordered hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition. Every state agency is militarized to some degree where compliance to regulations will be enforced by the Sheriff.

They think they have all they will need to win the war against a soft, uneducated and apathetic public.

But, almost all political change has been the result of economic crisis and a new one is brewing. The federal government is getting ready for it. They might seem like a bunch of bumbling fools who are unable to solve the issues of unemployment, border insurgency and crime, but they know what they are doing.

The announcement of the MyRA, a diabolical ruse to entice the average working poor to invest in government bonds, is only a precursor to the nationalization of all IRAs and 401ks. Fortunately, it will probably be implemented with the smooth efficiency of Obamacare and rattle enough cages early enough that resistance can be brought to bear.

The government has long since begun the guerrilla attacks on its citizens in tactical ways, battlefield prep and psy ops. Their plan is lumbering along, but it is the D-Day they need to fear. When the whole intensity of their efforts can no longer be disguised as a feint to one side or the other and is revealed as an all out frontal assault. That is the day of reckoning, but I suggest another tactic of our own: Engage the tactical battles strenuously.

The first and most viable is to resist efforts to neutralize religious zeal. Encourage your church to revoke its own 501c3 status. So your donations are not tax deductible, who cares? Charity should not be done with any other purpose in mind anyway, especially not a tax deduction. Let your church fight not to pay income taxes, or employment taxes as a violation of Church and State. Turn it back on them, fight with everything, with votes, with coordinated sermons, with a Tea Party devotion to electing better representatives. This nation would never have come about without the clergy hammering the issues of the day prior to the Revolutionary War.

Bring speakers into your churches that can relate to your congregation the Gospel of Liberty and fight on. Trust in God to protect the church.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Almost the first act of the Supreme Court was treason. In Marbury v. Madison, we see the convoluted, political thinking of the time. True, it was a moment rare in the history of nations that a national power structure must define itself. But, a closer look at the actual case reveals the self-serving, illogical conclusions typical of the Supreme Court today.

Ironically, the part of Marbury v. Madison that the Court found unconstitutional, which gave it the ability to interpret rights, rather than merely rule that a law is either Constitutional or unconstitutional, was finding that when the Judiciary Act of 1789 was passed that it gave the Supreme Court more jurisdiction than the Constitution allowed.

The correct ruling in this case should have been that since the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction in the case that it was in appropriate for it to hear it unless it heard it as a consequence of a lower court ruling. As is clear, by Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall
have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme
Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Marbury's case claimed that he had a right to his commission as a Justice of the Peace, not an Ambassador, not a Minister or Consul. He was not part of a case wherein a state was a party and so, the Supreme Court never should have heard the case. It did so to make a point as is clear in this look at Marshall's reasoning from Streetlaw:

Chief Justice Marshall understood the danger that this case posed to the power of the Supreme Court.Because Madison was President Jefferson’s secretary of state and Jefferson was head of the Democratic Party while Chief Justice Marshall and Marbury were Federalists, President Jefferson was almost certain to direct Madison to refuse to deliver the commission to Marbury. If the Court required Madison to deliver the commission and Madison refused, the Court had no power to force him to comply, and, therefore the Court would look weak.If the Court did not act, it would look like the justices made their decision out of the fear that Madison would not obey their decision.

Marshall wanted to establish the role of the Supreme Court as having the power to interpret the Constitution. It might have been their role to interpret laws in accordance with the plain language of the Constitution. But, not to interpret the Constitution itself, certainly not to interpret definitions of words in order to arrive at opposite definitions and therefore opposite conclusions.

Few know the outcome of the Marbury v. Madison case. They know that it established the Supreme Court's right to interpret the Constitution. It is what is taught in school and the Court has no reason now to look on the actions of John Marshall as anything other than appropriate.

The ruling is almost as insane as the justifications for the Supreme Court to have ruled in the case at all. It was agreed by the Court that Marbury did indeed deserve to receive his commission, that all the functions of government had taken place, but that the Court did not have the right to issue a writ of mandamus and so ruled that Marbury had a right to his commission, but that the Court could not force the Secretary of State (Madison) to deliver the commission to him.

Further, it ruled, without jurisdiction, that the part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which has governed these federal courts for over two hundred years almost without change, was unconstitutional in the fact that as part of the law it gave the Supreme Court the ability to issue a writ of Mandamus, which the Court claimed that was a power not given to it by the Constitution. Yet, the Law was never vacated. Since the whole of the law was not vacated, how is it possible that the Court edited the law? It can send the law back to the legislature to bring it into compliance with the Constitution, but justices cannot be allowed to edit laws, rewrite laws, etc.

Somehow, in all of this, the court failed to recognize that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case at all, much less rule on particulars of it, including accepting for itself, for eternity, the right to interpret the Constitution. This case is how we got here, it was the first act of treason and it has followed a path through Dredd Scott, Roe v Wade and the Obamacare rulings to show us that these Justices are criminal. They have corrupted our system from the start and their rulings have led us into slavery, denied to us our rights and relegated us to positions below that of citizens.

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Christians identify with being law-abiding. The Bible teaches that obedience to the law is part of being a good citizen. A good citizen. Consider that. What is good citizenship in the United States? Is it turning away from Christian beliefs in order to remain peaceful? Yes, this is exactly what the state wants from us. But, is that what God wants from us; to turn away from Him in order to remain peaceful to the state? I think not.

To most Christians it is a blurry line. It is intentionally blurry. The state is not interested in encouraging Christians to follow Christian values, in fact the state has been dedicated to the destruction of Christian values for a very long time. Marriage has increasingly become a secular union, one open to their interpretation, devoid of God, devoid of Christian values.

Religion itself has been under attack for several decades, driven from the public square by atheists and Godless judges.

Christians are not obligated to turn a blind eye to the abuses of government. The Constitution promises not only the freedom of religion, to have it, but also the "free exercise thereof." To that degree, the government is in violation of the law. Is it law-abiding to cooperate with law-breaking officials? It is not.

Christians accept martyrdom, they revel in the role at times. Persecution is common outside the United States, even among European nations. America has always been safe for Christianity until recently. It was a Godly thing that it was. Americans do not appreciate their role as the Christian power among the nations, the most formidable power for Christianity on the planet. Everything has been done to diminish that role over the past decades, but consider for a moment when that is no longer true.

What is a world without the power of God given voice through the generosity of American Christians? What nation would take the place of America and make it safe for Christians? None. Would you, in the pursuit of peace, forfeit the greatest source of peace and charity the world has ever known?

Q. Are Americans more or less charitable than citizens of other countries?A. No developed country approaches American giving. For example, in 1995 (the most recent year for which data are available), Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status. On the contrary, if we look at two people who are identical in all these ways except that one is European and the other American, the probability is still far lower that the European will volunteer than the American.

This is the power of a Christian nation. In every socialist nation the tendency toward charity and volunteerism is miniscule compared to America.

To let this nation fall into socialism and its statist point of view is more than criminal, it is unworthy of us as Christians.

Also from The American:

The fact is that self-described “conservatives” in America are more likely to give—and give more money—than self-described “liberals.” In the year 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more dollars to charity than households headed by a liberal. And this discrepancy in monetary donations is not simply an artifact of income differences. On the contrary, liberal families in these data earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families.These differences go beyond money. Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals. People who said they were “conservative” or “extremely conservative” made up less than one-fifth of the population, but donated more than a quarter of the blood. To put this in perspective, if political liberals and moderates gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the United States would surge by nearly half.One major explanation for the giving discrepancy between conservatives and liberals is religion. In 2004, conservatives were more than twice as likely as liberals to attend a house of worship weekly, whereas liberals were twice as likely as conservatives to attend seldom or never. There are indeed religious liberals in America, but they are currently outnumbered by religious conservatives by about four to one.